Non-Extraterrestrial UFO Hypotheses

What I fear is that eventually that wall - separating us from them/it - there from here... eventually it's going to come tumbling down. If
anything can do it - crack the code to the control system - science can do it.

I'm not sure I would be too worried about that. First science has to crack the code for consciousness and before that, they have to define it!
Essentially I am thinking we a hard wired for these experiences and the telling of them. I think it will always just be out of reach.

what happens when when two worlds collide.

I think you meet your doppelganger?

The liminal nature of this stuff makes it inherently slippery. It may well always be just out of our grasp.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
I continually come back to the Jung book.

A big part of that is the very strange and unexplainable perceptions of synchronicity I experienced while obsessed with the topic of UFOs which also
has been discussed by other researchers. This was connected to my own personal spiritual history so it felt to me like a psychological and/or
spiritual event and it had nothing to do with the perception of any "aliens." Just the same as many of those who have seen UFOs feel that what they
saw was without question physical reality I feel like these experiences must have been paranormal even though that is outside my present paradigm. On
the other hand I realize it was subjective reality and there could possibly be other explanations.

Yeah, I think Jung was onto something, too. It's very interesting that seriously delving into the paranormal over a period of time seems to produce
or make us beacons for strange phenomena. I always think of John Keel investigating the mothman sightings and the weirdness he experienced. I suspect
most of us would have responded by getting the hell out of Dodge. Any thoughts about why delving into the paranormal produces strange phenomena?

I wonder why we were so receptive to his stories that they imbedded themselves in our collective psyche. As Keel's article mentions, Ivan Sanderson
started the Bigfoot ball rolling. What is it about our psyches that some stories find a permanent home and others don't stick?

That fits right in with the Jungian archetype theory. Universal ideas or symbols that are somehow part of the human psyche. So the stories that
connect with those gain mythic power while those that don't do not.

Joseph Campbell is another who borrowed heavily from Jung.

en.wikipedia.org... Campbell's concept of monomyth (one myth) refers to the theory that sees all mythic narratives as
variations of a single great story. The theory is based on the observation that a common pattern exists beneath the narrative elements of most great
myths, regardless of their origin or time of creation. Campbell often referred to the ideas of Adolf Bastian and his distinction between what he
called "folk" and "elementary" ideas, the latter referring to the prime matter of monomyth while the former to the multitude of local forms the
myth takes in order to remain an up-to-date carrier of sacred meanings. The central pattern most studied by Campbell is often referred to as the
hero's journey and was first described in The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949).

It might be fun to break down some of the more enduring UFO narratives.

I wonder why we were so receptive to his stories that they imbedded themselves in our collective psyche. As Keel's article mentions, Ivan Sanderson
started the Bigfoot ball rolling. What is it about our psyches that some stories find a permanent home and others don't stick?

That fits right in with the Jungian archetype theory. Universal ideas or symbols that are somehow part of the human psyche. So the stories that
connect with those gain mythic power while those that don't do not.

Joseph Campbell is another who borrowed heavily from Jung.

en.wikipedia.org... Campbell's concept of monomyth (one myth) refers to the theory that sees all mythic narratives as
variations of a single great story. The theory is based on the observation that a common pattern exists beneath the narrative elements of most great
myths, regardless of their origin or time of creation. Campbell often referred to the ideas of Adolf Bastian and his distinction between what he
called "folk" and "elementary" ideas, the latter referring to the prime matter of monomyth while the former to the multitude of local forms the
myth takes in order to remain an up-to-date carrier of sacred meanings. The central pattern most studied by Campbell is often referred to as the
hero's journey and was first described in The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949).

It might be fun to break down some of the more enduring UFO narratives.

I'll do what I can, but with rule 6 in effect I might not be able to say much.

👣

Staying within the rules, give it your best shot. I don't think there's a rule about not discussing entity encounters and other worlds. You might want
to skip any reference to how you came to encounter the entities and other worlds and just focus on the entities and other worlds if you feel that that
won't be a violation. I don't want to encourage anyone to break any ATS rules.

I see similarities between that illustration and Australian aboriginal rock art and sand paintings. Hm.

I noticed the similarity with sand paintings too. The Huichol yarn paintings are less...organized? Tibetan Sand paintings product of a disciplined
lifestyle consisting of meditation and no sex!

Round geometric shapes and colors. Most UFOs are described as a mandala. Round swirling lights producing a profound experience...

What is the explanation for the content of Huichol yarn paintings and TIbetan Sand paintings? In other words, what do they say the artwork depicts?

Anyone who has ever been in a disco and experienced those god-awful lights knows that lights can produce an out-of-body or altered-consciousness
experience. I wonder if those blipping cop car lights that appear to be spinning were selected to disorient or entrance the people being stopped.
Also, lights can trigger epilepsy and temporal lobe epilepsy is one of the hypothetical causes of entity experiences. I know that some people are
sensitive to the banks of flickering florescent lights in big box stores. I wonder if any of the sensitive people have had entity encounters in those
stores. I'm not even kidding when I ask that. When I'm in a store like that I sometimes feel slightly out-of-body and can't think clearly. I
remember one occasion when I was vainly looking for paperclips and could not,for the life of me, remember what they were called or even the general
category of office supplies so that I could ask a clerk where to find them. It was as though an entire brain-circuit had been disconnected.

I wonder why we were so receptive to his stories that they imbedded themselves in our collective psyche. As Keel's article mentions, Ivan Sanderson
started the Bigfoot ball rolling. What is it about our psyches that some stories find a permanent home and others don't stick?

That fits right in with the Jungian archetype theory. Universal ideas or symbols that are somehow part of the human psyche. So the stories that
connect with those gain mythic power while those that don't do not.

Right. What is it about those particular stories (UFOS and Bigfoot) that are part of the human psyche? Perhaps the common response to interpret them
as physical is a reaction to the difficulty we modern humans have accepting the numinous.

Welcome to the discussion. You're certainly not alone is suspecting that UFO phenomena is a manifestation of something larger, just out of sight and
just beyond our comprehension. Perhaps that's why people who devote a lot of time delving into this topic come to feel like they're in a hall of
mirrors. It's a very slippery subject and a good example of liminality: betwixt and between--neither here nor there.

Thank you, I'm happy to take part in it. Betwixt and between--neither here nor there, I like that.

Vallee talks a great deal about the similarities between faerie encounters/abductions and modern-day UFO encounter/abduction stories. Have you read
any of his work? Patrick Harpur has interesting insights, too. His book Daimonic Reality is well worth reading.

I used to be one of those who believed in nuts and bolts saucers. Vallee is the one who really turned me around on the subject. I read all of his
books that I could get and what he has written just rings true to me when held up beside my own experiences. I will have to read the Harper book you
mention. I know first hand that there are things out there, or beings or whatever you want to call them, and they are deceitful and malicious in
nature.

I wonder why we were so receptive to his stories that they imbedded themselves in our collective psyche. As Keel's article mentions, Ivan Sanderson
started the Bigfoot ball rolling. What is it about our psyches that some stories find a permanent home and others don't stick?

That fits right in with the Jungian archetype theory. Universal ideas or symbols that are somehow part of the human psyche. So the stories that
connect with those gain mythic power while those that don't do not.

Right. What is it about those particular stories (UFOS and Bigfoot) that are part of the human psyche? Perhaps the common response to interpret them
as physical is a reaction to the difficulty we modern humans have accepting the numinous.

I'm sure you know this and I'm repeating what most here know but that was a major point of Jung's book: That people were mistaking spiritual
reality for physical reality. For myself, I really feel like I saw "something" and there were other people who saw them, too, but I suppose
everyone feels that way.

Oh yes, I absolutely do! In fact, I think that my continued existence may be attributed to the help of such entities. It's just that they don't
insinuate themselves into your life the way the bad ones do, in fact, you normally don't even know when they are around.

originally posted by: DelMarvel
I continually come back to the Jung book.

A big part of that is the very strange and unexplainable perceptions of synchronicity I experienced while obsessed with the topic of UFOs which also
has been discussed by other researchers. This was connected to my own personal spiritual history so it felt to me like a psychological and/or
spiritual event and it had nothing to do with the perception of any "aliens." Just the same as many of those who have seen UFOs feel that what they
saw was without question physical reality I feel like these experiences must have been paranormal even though that is outside my present paradigm. On
the other hand I realize it was subjective reality and there could possibly be other explanations.

. I always think of John Keel investigating the mothman sightings and the weirdness he experienced. I suspect most of us would have responded by
getting the hell out of Dodge. Any thoughts about why delving into the paranormal produces strange phenomena?

I should have given that thought, I suppose. I actually have no idea. My hardcore immersion into UFOs was twenty years ago now and is fuzzy. I
remember that I was reading Messengers of Deception and the Mothman Prophecies, some strange things started happening and I became afraid that if I
continued I would meet the Men in Black. So I abruptly stopped all my research, put everything out of my mind and went back to my previous life. It
felt "real" but somehow I was aware that it was the result of where I was putting my attention and that I could stop it by directing my mind
elsewhere.

This is exactly the approach I have taken. I have found that if I apply my mind only to day to day concerns, i.e. my job, kids etc., I don't have
these interruptions in my life. It's funny, I still love reading about all these things, but I have to keep a certain distance from them.

Also, to add, I apply liberal doses of alcohol to alleviate these unwanted intrusions. I don't want to condone it, but it works for me. When I
don't drink I have all kinds of sleep disturbance and nightmares and sleep paralysis etc.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.